Charm mechanic changes next patch?

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You’ve been asking me what I think, so I’ve been replying with what I think should happen. Sorry I’m not in charge?

As reverts generally don’t happen I suppose the dev team only implements changes they feel are a step closer to classic and the arguments, even if they lacked what you might consider hard evidence, were persuasive enough to make the decision to change.

No you are saying "if its wrong they can revert it".

Which is bullshit, since reverts don't happen, which you admit.

Let me add a smiley and hope this info helps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You (poorly) evaded every question and it is tiresome. Try taking lessons from Loramin, I know you are buddies.

[Jimjam]

Perhaps you would like to go back over your questions and try repeating them rephrased as I don’t seem to have answered them in the way you were hoping - maybe I’ve misunderstood?

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Perhaps you would like to go back over your questions and try repeating them rephrased as I don’t seem to have answered them in the way you were hoping - maybe I’ve misunderstood?

Thank you but no [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I wanted to spend hundreds of hours arguing with people in bad faith, I'd have taken it up with Loramin earlier.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you but no [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I wanted to spend hundreds of hours arguing with people in bad faith, I'd have taken it up with Loramin earlier.

My apologies. I thought we were having a discussion to explore each others thoughts, I didn’t realise you were trying to argue with me in bad faith. Sorry.

I’ll try to prepare some bad faith arguments for next time. I’ll keep them punchy so you won’t need to spend hundreds of hours at it!

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My apologies. I thought we were having a discussion to explore each others thoughts, I didn’t realise you were trying to argue with me in bad faith. Sorry.

I’ll try to prepare some bad faith arguments for next time. I’ll keep them punchy so you won’t need to spend hundreds of hours at it!

I phrased it like that since you'd take that bait.

You understood perfectly well what I said, and are supporting what I meant with the quoted post [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jimjam]

Thanks for anticipating and appreciating my good humour!

I’m not really sure what your point to me was - i mist compliment you on this: you’re opaque and manipulative (though funny!) - a perfect enchanter - but that makes it difficult for me to understand what you’re trying to communicate with your posts. Maybe you aren’t trying to communicate, more achieve something? Either way, I’m not very good at political games.

I feel like we’ve been lead on a bit of a wild goose chase. So i’ll just back track. There is no reason to treat much on p1999 as sacrosanct: the server it is largely ‘fake’ (as in it isn’t the original product). That said, I’d rather have fake that feels classic.

Remember when AC got overhauled from one unclassic implementation to another? It’s still verifiably unclassic, but at least it feels closer to classic. I can’t remember if it was a nerf or not, but I hope this charm change goes the same way - if all the ‘charm is broken’ threads stop like the ‘ac is broken’ threads stopped that would be a boon.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You aren't here for classic, you are just trying to ruin other classes with your incessant moaning and lies.

It isn't subtle, it isn't smart.

You being happy about other classes being nerfed says a lot about you as a person.

I'll make sure to post a compilation of quotes from you on the topic, so every enchanter knows how this came to be and who to thank.

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic.

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Bondrake]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic.

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How dare you destroy my favorite class. You fat ugly neckbeard.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic.

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Amazing! So many people been arguing Enchanter charm felt wrong (or right), but Dolalin dod the impossible found good evidence beyond just witness statements.

Do you think no change would have been made if not for this research? I wonder how many other things are an unclassic implementation, kept in the project out of inertia because it is the first attempted best guess.

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic.

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the person that posted this "proof", 2nd paragraph from your link:

"And each test includes a total of 25 charms. Yes, I know this is WAY too low to have a completely accurate result set, but damn, I can only sit it one place for so long charming the same mob"

Even in 2001 that guy knew this is very low value at best.

Also there is absolutely zero data on mobs >50.

Of course you already knew that. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You are just pretending to be stupid so you can gloat about this [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]